Civil enforcement ltd

KeithP

Now please edit your most recent post to remove your vehicle's registration mark.

Coupon-mad

Yes, there's not enough detail in the POC.  Expect to receive papers with more detail, maybe photos.

Once the full POC arrive, as I said, you will be able to adapt the new Template Defence alerting the Judge to the DLUHC's 31st July analysis and Draft Impact Assessment.

Original defence below:

Coupon-mad said:

BowieBoy333 said:

It's taken longer than I hoped, but I think my defence is finished.. 

. It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle WN5etc.

.The defendant arrived at the car park in question at 07:56 on 24/01/2022.
The defendant proceeded to use the online Phone & Pay app to purchase a parking ticket.
However,the initial,and subsequent attempts to pay for a ticket we're met with the onscreen word 'ERROR'. 
Believing the problem could be with their own device,the defendant restarted the device,and again attempted to pay using the Phone & Pay app. The word 'ERROR' was still displaying.
The defendant then telephoned the Phone & Pay company directly to inform them of the issue, but an automated message informed them the company was "out of office" and to call again between the business hours of "09:30 and 17:30".
The defendant was left with no choice but to continue the attempts to purchase an online ticket. This included having to uninstall and reinstall the Phone & Pay app in the hope it would function. This procedure required the defendant fill in all personal details again, including payment card information.All of which took up more time.
At no point did the defendant leave the vehicle or the car park, choosing instead to remain with the vehicle in the hope an attendant or the land owner would come by,but neither did.
Eventually after more failed attempts,the Phone & Pay app appeared to function once more,and the defendant was able to finally purchase a valid ticket.
Clearly, the defendant intended to pay, and did pay for his session. But the ability to meet the terms was frustrated by the poor software being offered by the claimant.
All reasonable endeavours were made to comply, and payment was made in full.  There is no loss to recover and the claimant is aware of this fact, yet continues to pursue the defendant unreasonably.

A reminder that this (above) was the original para 3 and the old Template Defence was used (Feb 2023).

BowieBoy333

Coupon-mad said:

The POC are in the claim form on the left.  Please copy them here so we can see.

Only one single PCN then.

Hopefully you can see I've reproduced what the POC says .

And to answer your second question - 
No, there's quite a few PCNs from that car park.
They recently sent some very contradictory communications to me, including a one off payment offer of a substantial reduction to clear them all .
All whilst maintaining their app payment option never fails. However, since all this started , I have found a massive, and I do mean massive, list of negative reviews of their payment app . Nearly all fall into the same category of issues that I have faced.

BowieBoy333

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, there's not enough detail in the POC.  Expect to receive papers with more detail, maybe photos.

Once the full POC arrive, as I said, you will be able to adapt the new Template Defence alerting the Judge to the DLUHC's 31st July analysis and Draft Impact Assessment.

Original defence below:

Coupon-mad said:

BowieBoy333 said:

It's taken longer than I hoped, but I think my defence is finished.. 

. It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle WN5etc.

.The defendant arrived at the car park in question at 07:56 on 24/01/2022.
The defendant proceeded to use the online Phone & Pay app to purchase a parking ticket.
However,the initial,and subsequent attempts to pay for a ticket we're met with the onscreen word 'ERROR'. 
Believing the problem could be with their own device,the defendant restarted the device,and again attempted to pay using the Phone & Pay app. The word 'ERROR' was still displaying.
The defendant then telephoned the Phone & Pay company directly to inform them of the issue, but an automated message informed them the company was "out of office" and to call again between the business hours of "09:30 and 17:30".
The defendant was left with no choice but to continue the attempts to purchase an online ticket. This included having to uninstall and reinstall the Phone & Pay app in the hope it would function. This procedure required the defendant fill in all personal details again, including payment card information.All of which took up more time.
At no point did the defendant leave the vehicle or the car park, choosing instead to remain with the vehicle in the hope an attendant or the land owner would come by,but neither did.
Eventually after more failed attempts,the Phone & Pay app appeared to function once more,and the defendant was able to finally purchase a valid ticket.
Clearly, the defendant intended to pay, and did pay for his session. But the ability to meet the terms was frustrated by the poor software being offered by the claimant.
All reasonable endeavours were made to comply, and payment was made in full.  There is no loss to recover and the claimant is aware of this fact, yet continues to pursue the defendant unreasonably.

A reminder that this (above) was the original para 3 and the old Template Defence was used (Feb 2023).

Thank you. I will keep you informed.

BowieBoy333

Hi again.. 
So, a little while ago I received their more detailed POC. It didn't arrive by post however; just by email .

B789

Can you show us the "more detailed" PoC? Do you know if they CC'd in the court? If not, have they stated that they have copied in the court?

BowieBoy333

Here it is - 

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CHESTERFIELD

 CLAIM NO: ****

 BETWEEN

 CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LIMITED

 V

 Claimant

 J****

 Defendant

 AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 I Scott Wilson of Civil Enforcement Limited, Horton House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool, L2 3PF ("the Claimant) am duly authorised by the Claimant and make this statement in support of the claim brought against J**** ("the Defendant'):

 1. The violation occurred in the car park at Worksop Miners Welfare Hall, 56 Gateford Road, Worksop S80 1EB ("the Car Park") and at all material the Car Park was managed by the Claimant.

 2. The claim is brought for breach of contract, which arose when the Defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions displayed in the Car Park. Drivers are permitted to park in the Car Park in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on signage, and these signs constitute an offer by the Claimant to enter into a contract with the drivers.

 3. The Claimant uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology at the entrance and exit of the Car Park, which identify the date and time of arrival and departure of vehicles from the Car Park. The Claimant's ANPR cameras recorded the Defendant's vehicle, registration number ******* ("the Vehicle"), entering the Car Park on 24 January 2022 at 07:56 and departing on the same date at 13:24, a total duration of stay of 5 hours and 28 minutes.

 4. Signs in the Car Park clearly state the following:

 "PHONE AND PAY OR PAY AT MACHINE UP TO 2 HOURS £1.00 2-4 HOURS E1,50 ALL DAY PARKING £3.00 PAYMENT MUST BE MADE WITHIN 10 MINUTES OF ARRIVING AT THE PREMISES This land is private property. The parking terms apply 24 hours a day.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CHESTERFIELD CLAIM NO: ********* 

If you do not obtain a valid permit, you must (a) pay within 10 minutes of arrival; (b) not 

overstay the purchased parking time; (c) provide your full, exact registration number when 

making your payment. 

IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100. 

Additional costs/recovery charges will be incurred if payment is not received within 28 

days…”

5. When the Defendant parked the Vehicle in the Car Park they accepted, by their conduct, the 

Operator’s pricing structure. The Defendant was allowed to remain in the Car Park in 

consideration for agreeing to pay £100.00 (reduced to £60.00 if paid within 14 days) to the 

Claimant. Consequently, a contract was formed between the Claimant and Defendant. 

6. The Defendant breached the contract, specifically, by failing to make payment for parking 

within 10 minutes of arrival and exceeding the purchased parking time. The Defendant made 

payment of £1.50 at 08:57:11, almost an hour after arriving at the Car Park. The period paid 

for was a maximum of 4 hours and the Defendant remained in the Car Park for 5 hours and 28 

minutes. 

7. The Defendant’s details as the registered keeper of the Vehicle were obtained from the DVLA, 

following the violation, on 28 January 2022. Numerous letters including, but not limited to, 

the PCN, PCN Reminder and letter before action were sent to the Defendant to the address 

provided by the DVLA, however, as the debt remained outstanding, we were left with no 

alternative but to commence legal proceedings. 

8. The amount claimed (not including fixed costs on issuing the claim) is broken down as follows: 

£100 (Parking Charge Notice) 

+£70 (Debt recovery costs) 

+£13.94 (Accrued interest from date of violation to date claim issued. Claimed under s.69 of 

the County Courts Act 1994 at the rate of 8% per annum) 

TOTAL: £183.94 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this reply to order are true. I understand that proceedings for 

contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement 

in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. 

SIGNED: 

 SCOTT WILSON 

 General Counsel

DATED: 5 September 2023 

BowieBoy333

Just re-reading their amended PoC statement, and that's the first time ever, that they've mentioned how long I was in that car park.

B789

What does the PCN/NtK say about how long the car was parked? Is there any mention of £70 debt recovery fee on the signs? Is there any mention of the £70 debt recovery fee in the PCN/NtK?

According to the PoC the signs state: "IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100. 

Additional costs/recovery charges will be incurred if payment is not received within 28 days…"

They cannot just state that "additional cost/recovery charges" without stating the amount. It's a bit like going into a shop and the price tag on something says "price will be decided at the till". You will need to state in your revised defence, amongst other things, that the claimant must provide a breakdown of the added £70 which you suspect is extortion, especially as the recent DLUHC Impact Assessment has highlighted an industry-wide overstatement of recovery costs of over 800%. Of course, that will show unreasonable behaviour and will be an opportunity for the claim to be thrown out, amongst all the other failures by the claimant.

BowieBoy333

B789 said:

What does the PCN/NtK say about how long the car was parked? Is there any mention of £70 debt recovery fee on the signs? Is there any mention of the £70 debt recovery fee in the PCN/NtK?

According to the PoC the signs state: "IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100. 

Additional costs/recovery charges will be incurred if payment is not received within 28 

days…"

They cannot just state that "additional cost/recovery charges" without stating the amount. It's a bit like going into a shop and the price tag on something says "price will be decided at the till".

No....I just checked a photo I took of the car park sign, and it  Definitely DOES NOT mention £70 debt recovery fees.

I cannot check the original NTK /PCN until tomorrow I'm afraid, as I'm not home this evening. So I'll have to get back to you on that point.